This article points up evidence by which the language of the Roman imperial cult might help make clearer what a reader of Mark's Gospel
might understand when the centurion (Mark 15,39) refers to Jesus as ui(o\j
qeou=. Knowing how an audience familiar with this cult language would
react, Mark intentionally speaks of Jesus as ui(o\j qeou=
at 1,1, as well as at 15,39.

Page 224

authenticity of the centurions confession, because not only does
he deny its validity as a full Christian confession but also because he questions the
necessity of having such a confession at the conclusion of the Gospel. Johnson argues
that, "a Roman soldier of a centurions rank and experience would be too
sophisticated and would have been exposed to too many gods to make that kind of quick
judgment at an execution, and Marks readers would have known it"10.

Although Johnsons
argument on the cultural and historical background of the Roman centurions in general
appears to be thorough, how each individual centurion would have reacted to Jesus
crucifixion cannot be generalized by what the Roman centurions as a group would have done.
The Gospels and Acts list a few Roman centurions who were receptive to the Gospel and the
Jewish faith (Matt 8,10; Luke 7,9) and even one who himself became a Christian (Acts
10,1-48). Further, the image of a Roman centurion that Marks readers were likely to
have should not compromise its claim to historical authenticity, because it is improbable
that Mark would invent a saying that he knew none of his readers would find believable. It
is also possible that the miracles and signs that occurred at the moment of Jesus
death convinced the generally superstitious Romans and prompted the centurion to
acknowledge Jesus divinity.

It also seems highly
unlikely that the definite article in 15,39 is lost due to authorial negligence or scribal
error. Other Markan references to "the Son of God" (1,11; 3,11; Gods
"My Son" and "the Son of the Blessed" 1,11; 5,7; 9,7; 14,62) all have
the definite article except 1,111. The context of the
confession would have been clearer had the Roman centurion spoken in Latin instead of
Greek and the Gospel had preserved the original Latin. If this was the case, the
association of the confession with the Roman imperial cult, or the lack thereof, would
have been obvious, because the Latin ephitet divi filius would immediately direct
ones attention to the Roman imperial cult. Latin, of course, does not have a the
definite article.